EUR-Lex Access to European Union law

Back to EUR-Lex homepage

This document is an excerpt from the EUR-Lex website

Document 62009CA0450

Case C-450/09: Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany)) — Ulrich Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln (Free movement of capital — Direct taxation — Taxation of income from the letting of immovable property — Deductibility of annuities paid to a relative in the context of an anticipated succession inter vivos — Condition of being subject to unlimited tax liability in the Member State at issue)

OJ C 152, 21.5.2011, p. 7–7 (BG, ES, CS, DA, DE, ET, EL, EN, FR, IT, LV, LT, HU, MT, NL, PL, PT, RO, SK, SL, FI, SV)

21.5.2011   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 152/7


Judgment of the Court (Second Chamber) of 31 March 2011 (reference for a preliminary ruling from the Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht (Germany)) — Ulrich Schröder v Finanzamt Hameln

(Case C-450/09) (1)

(Free movement of capital - Direct taxation - Taxation of income from the letting of immovable property - Deductibility of annuities paid to a relative in the context of an anticipated succession inter vivos - Condition of being subject to unlimited tax liability in the Member State at issue)

2011/C 152/11

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Ulrich Schröder

Defendant: Finanzamt Hameln

Re:

Reference for a preliminary ruling — Niedersächsisches Finanzgericht — Interpretation of Articles 12 and 56 EC — Taxation on income deriving from the leasing or letting of immovable property — Legislation of a Member State making the possibility of deducting the allowances paid to the former owner of those properties in the context of anticipatory succession subject to the condition of being wholly liable to tax in that state

Operative part of the judgment

Article 63 TFEU must be interpreted as precluding legislation of a Member State which, while allowing a resident taxpayer to deduct the annuities paid to a relative who transferred to him immovable property situated in the territory of that State from the rental income derived from that property, does not grant such a deduction to a non-resident taxpayer, in so far as the undertaking to pay those annuities results from the transfer of that property.


(1)  OJ C 37, 13.2.2010.


Top